A hurricane couldn’t stop it. Two billion dollars couldn’t buy it. A weak economy couldn’t swing it. Americans re-elected Barack Obama on Tuesday, affirming the goals of the President’s tumultuous first term and giving him a second. This wasn’t 2008. Not as many states went his way. Fewer of his supporters wept. This time, it wasn’t about change.

By 10:45 p.m. E.T., gongs were ringing at Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago as key states were called for the incumbent. New Hampshire. Bong. Pennsylvania. Bong. Wisconsin. Bong. In Boston, home to Mitt Romney’s campaign, a glum crowd of Republicans began to thin. Half headed to the bars, the other half to the exits. A few hours later, it was all over. “I pray that the President will be successful in guiding our nation,” Romney told the crowd in a short, dignified concession speech.

At McCormick Place in Chicago, Obama took his time addressing the nation that had extended his lease on the White House. “Tonight in this election, you, the American people, reminded us that while our road has been hard, while our journey has been long, we have picked ourselves up. We have fought our way back,” he said. “We know in our hearts that for the United States of America, the best is yet to come.”

The election once looked as if it would turn on the U.S. economy, still experiencing aftershocks from the 2008 financial crisis. And maybe it did — just not in the way Republicans had planned. Romney’s blue-chip business background seemed the perfect credential with which to challenge Obama, who entered the White House just as the depths of the recession became apparent. But after catastrophic downturns in employment, consumer confidence and the housing market early in Obama’s first term, the economy stabilized in the past year. The result: a frustratingly slow but palpable recovery that gave an unlikely edge to the incumbent. The revitalization of the auto industry in particular, enabled by a 2009 bailout that Romney opposed, might have been the difference in industrial Ohio.

Romney began the general election with a simple pitch: Obama tried to fix the economy and failed. But by August, the Republican had changed tacks. Rather than pluck a humdrum GOPer from a swing state, he named as his running mate Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, a budget-slashing crusader with dramatic ideas about how to reform federal health entitlements. It wasn’t enough to flip Wisconsin in the end. But Romney’s selection of Ryan was never a narrow electoral play. It was a signal that he saw his challenge in a different light. The base might rally to him. His aides started to talk about a “choice election” in which Romney offered not just an indictment of Obama’s policies but also the promise of a brighter future under bold Republican leadership.

The economic and electoral realities that prompted Romney’s strategic shift did not change. Polling in late summer showed Obama with a narrow edge where it counted. And despite a spike for Obama after his party’s September convention and a swoon the other way after his sleepy showing in the first debate, the race remained remarkably static, a noisy spat over the loyalties of a few undecided voters who hadn’t paid enough attention to get sucked into the partisan tribalism that is modern American politics. After the two parties spent more than $2 billion on the most technologically complex campaign in history and an unprecedented wave of third-party groups spent hundreds of millions more, Obama won Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa — just as the polls predicted.

With his victory Tuesday night, Obama maintained command of a country with real potential for growth as it escapes the pull of the worst economic crisis in generations. But the obstacles are many. Congress remains divided, with control of both houses unchanged by an election that upheld an uneasy status quo. Deadlock threatens to turn routine budget negotiations into a fiscal emergency, with deep cuts to the military and social services scheduled to go into effect in January unless Congress finds a solution. Obama’s agenda for his second term — reordering the bloated tax code, reforming the nation’s immigration laws and brokering a deal to control the explosion of long-term deficits — looks no easier to achieve now than it did before Tuesday.

How Republicans react to Romney’s loss will likely determine the country’s path. After John McCain’s defeat in 2008, a splenetic conservative base formed the Tea Party to oust the moderates and establishmentarians who had failed them. The result, aided by a tanking economy, was a midterm sweep in 2010 that strengthened the party’s right wing and delivered the House of Representatives to the Republicans, who used it to oppose Obama at every turn. If the GOP blames Romney for this election’s outcome, another conservative retrenchment could mean more gridlock and more primary bloodletting. But if the fault falls on conservative candidates like Missouri’s Todd Akin and Indiana’s Richard Mourdock — a group that not only weighed down the top of the ticket but also may have cost the GOP control of the Senate — things could be different. Republicans might rethink the wisdom of playing to a shrinking coalition, as Democrats run up margins with women and Latinos. More important, they might resign themselves to work with the President they couldn’t get rid of.

By 2016 Obama will have doubled the National Debt. Thereby creating the Obama Debt equal to the prior National Debt. Was it really worth it? Bush's bump to the deficit was only supposed to last for one year. Not eight years. Now that the GOP has been marginalized there is no reason to stop. Until disaster strikes. Since at least traditionally money does not grow on trees. Plus every other country that has used the printing press like Obama is doing to create Free Obama Money has destroyed both their currency and their economy. Will it be any different this type around?

Today, Wednesday, November 7, the day after the election, Matt Kibbe, (pronounced in two syllables) president and CEO of Freedom Works, which is allied with the Tea Party, was interviewed on All Things Considered, the NPR evening news program. When he was asked if healthcare was not a done deal, he replied, "One of the firt things we need to do is repeal the health care law." The reporter gently pointed out that the Senate now had a 54 - 46 Democratic majority, had picked up a couple of seats in the House, and President Obama had been re-elected. "It's going to be a huge challenge. . ."Kibbe responded.

In middle eastern cuisine, kibbee (sometimes kibbeh) is finely-ground lamb, goat, or beef mixed with coarsely ground bulgar wheat, and served raw with a coating of olive oil. It is generally eaten with pita. It's very tasty. As for Mr. Kibbe, he has my pity. He clearly just doesn't "get it."

Despite all odds, our President prevailed. He still has an uphill battle fighting a Red House which has blocked his every move in an attempt to squash his goals of bringing the Middle Class equal pay, women’s rights, gay rights and affordable healthcare. The Bush Administration drove our economy into a swift nose dive and Obama is still the patsy. Watch conservative hands paint him in Blackface with a visual commentary of how Barack has been bamboozled at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/10/bamboozling-obama.html

The winner takes it all The loser's standing small Beside the victory That's a destiny I was in your arms Thinking I belonged there I figured it made sense Building me a fence Building me a home Thinking I'd be strong there But I was a fool Playing by the rules The gods may throw a dice Their minds as cold as ice And someone way down here Loses someone dear The winner takes it all The loser has to fall It's simple and it's plain Why should I complain.

It’s true that when Romney took to the stage at last in Boston, right before 1 a.m., he didn’t kick over the podium, rip off his shirt and throw a chair into the audience. He didn’t spend the long minutes between victory being called for Obama and his acquiescence of the race hopping on a plane to Chicago so he could bum-rush the president’s victory speech. And he may not have spent that time holed up in a bunker with his advisers, making women cry.

Instead, he came out before the nation, put on his game face, and expressed his gratitude. He said, “We can’t risk partisan bickering and political posturing.” Good for him. He also sighed that his wife, Ann, “would have been a wonderful first lady,” and, in a statement that would not have been out of place coming from a partner at Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce, thanked his “sons for their tireless work on behalf of the campaign, and … their wives and children for taking up their slack as their husbands and dads have spent so many weeks away from home.” Seriously.

If you think that’s the epitome of Republican class, contrast Romney’s defeat speech to that of John McCain, in 2008. Whatever you think of McCain, he didn’t sit around stewing forever before getting on the horn with his opponent. And when he stood before his supporters, he shushed the members of his constituency who tried to boo their new president, and instead offered Obama his “respect for his ability and perseverance” in “inspiring the hopes of so many millions of Americans who had once wrongly believed that they had little at stake or little influence in the election of an American president.” McCain said he “admired” Obama and “applauded” him, and he ended by saying, “I hold in my heart nothing but love for this country and for all its citizens, whether they supported me or Sen. Obama.”

Romney, on the other hand, merely managed to grunt out that the Obama campaign “deserves congratulations” and “I wish all of them well.” He then moped that “I so wish that I had been able to fulfill your hopes to lead the country in a different direction, but the nation chose another leader,” and ominously declared that “Ann and I join with you to earnestly pray for him and for this great nation.” It seemed as tired and halfhearted as a little league player muttering, “Good game. Good game. Good game,” to the winning team before heading to the showers.

He wanted it to be “different,” and he’s praying for you, America. That is not “gracious.” What it is instead is a pretty typical Romney, a man who would arrogantly refuse to entertain the notion of defeat and then grind in his heels and refuse to accept it for as long as possible. A man who would pout that his wife would have made a kickass first lady, who thanks men for their tireless work and “wives” for picking up the slack. That was your glimpse, Tuesday night, of what your President Romney would have looked like. And maybe it doesn’t sound gracious to say so, but thank God that’s the last look we’ll have.

Will this chase the likes of Rove, Gillespie, Norquist, Preibus etc. out of the party leadership? Are you kidding? The money is still where its at. The Republican Party really does need to go back to their roots and take the party back to true conservatism, but that is about as likely as any of these folks losing their grip on the throats of the GOP. A fight will take place, but the GOP is beholden to the few not the many, so don't expect things to change much.

Our focus now should be to help push for the equality of American's access to the playing field. Obama and those progressive enough to care will have a fight to make this happen. Keep up the pressure on your representatives to not let the few continue to dictate the rules. If the conservatives can get their act together, then we'll all be better off because we'll have real leadership decisions based on whats best for America and not party. Keep the faith and continue to make your voices heard.

@dregstudios1 Not quite accurate. Obama's administration hasn't been able to get many of its Bills passed in the senate (in particular jobs bills) because Democrat bill sponsors insist on attaching things to those bills that have nothing to do with the basic measure (such as a tax hike, that Repubs are never going to agree to). And that's been a tactic of the Obama administration - attach irrelevant but controversial measures to Bills, and then when (expectedly) they are blocked or filibustered in the Senate, the administration can claim the GOP as 'anti Obama' or 'anti US jobs' and make the GOP look like the bogeyman. This is the kind of thing the liberal media never report on when they discuss blocked legislative measures.

@outsider2011 Can't you even be gracious in victory (for I presume you were for Pres Obama)? Romney and his family had to face a dwindling, glum, terribly disappointed and disheartened group of supporters, friends and campaign workers, and somehow put on a brave face and be gracious in defeat. That's not an easy ask for anyone - let alone an exhausted campaigner who even on that day had been out on the trail in a last ditch bid to persuade undecideds. That he may not have carried off the speech with Obama-like aplomb is, I think, irrelevant. At least he made the effort, and his decision to postpone concession was entirely reasonable and understandable - it was the least he owed his supporters, not to concede the election until the numbers made victory statistically impossible.

Look at it this way: at the rate they're going, the Republicans should get to be good at giving concession speeches. To tell you the truth, I don't actually care whether the speeches are gracious or graceful. I care only that they are conceding defeat. Encore, encore!

The problem I see with Republicans is that they >have< their act together, in a sense. I mean 33 separate votes to try to repeal the ACA, when there were really important things to be handled? Give me a break.

Their "togetherness" gives the impression of being monolithic, as in "stonewalling." If, by "get their act together," we mean for them to actually take a look at reality, whether they like it or not, and act accordingly, then, I'm all for it. I just have this awful suspicion that they continue to think that reality bends to their ideology, regardless of repeated illustrations that it does not.

@thewholetruth I don't understand (being outside the US but able to access Fox News) why democrats/liberals get so upset about it, and rave about it all the time? Self-evidently to anyone outside the US Fox News is not a news channel - it's a partisan, tabloid, right wing opinion channel, and it's references to 'fair and balanced' coverage do nothing to change that in the mind of intelligent independent thinkers. OK so we all accept that...then why not just TURN IT OFF? Ignore it, do not watch it. In a free and democratic society you have the option to speak (as they do, and come out with rubbish), but also to ignore speech you don't like. Why should it be banned? Is there only one acceptable view to be put forward by TV channels? I'd like an answer to this.

Honestly I don't even dislike Romney. I think he's a lot more moderate than his party forced him to be. What I hate is the party he represents and the people he surrounded himself with, and he probably could have beaten Obama were it not for the insanity that they made him march to (his complete inability to form solid beliefs certainly didn't help him in this regard).

It's sad that when explaining GOPs 'intellectual' 'reasoning' behind opposing anything dem - you kind of have to use quotation marks on every third or so word to illustrate that it all reads like GOP just doesn't like to govern.

@Kiwipolitico6@thewholetruth I assumed you were outside of US because of your avatar and gathered that you watched Fox or some other Murdoch channel because in your comments about Romney that I read present perfectly the world view I have heard quoted from other right wing people. For example you define Romney as a moderate, but have nothing to prove that except assumptions because he was governor in MA. However, he was a terrible governor and lost that one of his "home" states by a huge margin. He did have a Democratic legislature to work with there, but after a year or two he couldn't even get any Republican votes to sustain his veto.

He is a shape shifter and a liar. Why wouldn't he release his tax returns as others have done? Frequently he made a statement to a group that got in the news, but immediately his staff were putting out statements to the media saying what he really meant was... generally the opposite. His mendacity in running those ads implying Chrysler was sending Jeep jobs after it was pointed out by fact checkers that they were not true, was stunning. It is unprecedented for the CEO's of GM and Chrysler to put out a statement saying the ads were not true, but Mitt not only kept running them, but did a radio commercial as well. That is just another example of his lack of principals.

@Kiwipolitico6@thewholetruth Most of us know exactly what Fox News is. We don't watch (although I did watch Rove's meltdown). Realistically, no one wants it banned. Our concern is the influence it has on people who use it as there only source of news, in combination with hate radio talk shows.

It can be a deadly force (Dr. Tiller). It keeps the negative, racist, mysoginist viewer in a state of rage. Banning is not an option but speaking out against the ignorance is.

Obama hasn't done "nothing" on immigration. He's booted more immigrants out of the country than Bush did, and he's tried to pass the DREAM act (and also ordered ICE to stop going after their children).

@DonQuixotic@MrObvious@outsider2011 Yes he was/is a moderate, and even probably agreed with Obama and the Dems on many foreign policy positions (as became evident in the third debate). Fatally I think, for Romney, his own party forced him to run to the right of guys like Gingrich and Santorum during the GOP primary, including on immigration, and that latter move in particular cost Romney almost the entire Latino vote (which is huge) and that in itself was enough to cost him the election. The fact that Obama has done nothing on immigration didn't really matter - Romney became the bogeyman, not just for Latinos, but also for women (the Obama campaign creating the 'war on women' as a straw man for Romney and then knocking it down), and African Americans (Romney and the GOP became the face of 'old white men' and racism, according to the narrative). Pick off some key constituencies, turn them against Romney, and together with Sandy and some clever guys on the ground, the deal is done for Obama. His campaign must be congratulated on its brilliant strategy, but in the end no amount of clever needlework can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and that's what the Obama electorate will discover over the next 4 years of his 'second chance' tenure in the White House.

@DonQuixotic@MrObvious@outsider2011 I don't think he's more moderate. I think he is a soulless shape shifter and I'm glad he's going to be gone from public office. If he had won, all future campaigns would have been about how much more can we lie about everything since we don't suffer any consequences. The media is so cowed about being called librul that they won't call a Republican candidate out no matter what they say.